Comments on: Missing every opportunity to improve public transporthttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907
Wellington news and viewsThu, 14 Dec 2017 02:16:28 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.1By: Phil Drummondhttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907&cpage=1#comment-1577657
Sat, 05 Aug 2017 04:27:19 +0000http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907#comment-1577657Does anyone on the Greater Wellington Sustainable Transport or other associated transport committees actually use the public transport they are considering or implementing changes to? Scrapping the bus monthly passes, based on current fares, will increase my current $150 30-day pass to around a $220 spend. Nice that peak hour commuters are getting penalised as a revenue scheme.
]]>By: Tony Jansenhttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907&cpage=1#comment-1563024
Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:38:41 +0000http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907#comment-1563024LKWT or Let’s Keep Wellington Talking… My somewhat tongue in cheek take on LGWM or Let’s Get Wellington Moving. If only we could decide just where Wellingtonians want to move from and move to! One thing is for certain, however we move it will not be by trolley bus.

According to Michael Barnett, a retired civil engineer with experience working on the Terrace Tunnel (DomPost today), Wellingtonians do not want nor need to be moving on another cross town motorway to the airport. Having lived for a number of years in Waterview, Auckland where they now have a big tunnel and….highways, I accept his conclusion. We don’t need four lanes to the planes. But having dealt with Transit, LTSA and whatever other entity they were in between, I can say with absolute certainty borne from bitter experience, these folk were 100% captured by National Party pro roads ideology and served as a duplicitous agent of party policy. Trust and integrity were certainly two words that never came to mind in all my dealings with this body.

Barnett is right in stating that we are going about this all wrong. We should be asking “what is our vision? What do we want our city to be?” Yeah right! Does anyone really think that any of the parties involved in this process are going to be asking these sorts of questions? If you look at New Zealand history you will see that we choose the cheap, expedient option every time. Who cares about the future eh? Let someone else pay for that, just as long as it is not out of my pocket!! If you think this is cynical then consider that Auckland chose to reject putting train tracks on the harbour bridge when it was built. Also, they first talked about light rail in the 1950s and 60s when Dove Myer Robinson was mayor (and he was ridiculed for it). So that’s a 60 year process before they got anything physically done. And do remember that the National Government fought tooth and nail to block Auckland’s light rail plans.

Do we expect anything different from the Wellington process? The National Government failed to elect Jo Coughlan whose sole policy was core National Party (roading) policy. They also tried prior to the last elections to saddle Wellington with a grotesque Basin Flyover. Thankfully this was stopped by public and interest group pressure. We will need the same mobilization and public resolve to bat away the next ideological inspired roading solution.

There have been a raft of letters to the editor in the DomPost protesting against the demise of our beloved trolley buses. [Many articles on Wellington.Scoop too.] Let’s be honest here – this is a fiasco. I will explain very briefly exactly what is going on here. About a year ago NZ Bus chief executive Zane Fulljames was bullish about the new Wrightspeed hybrid powertrains for our trolley bus fleet. (These dual powertrains are for the trolley fleet only.) Fulljames at the time basically said the conversion was a fait accompli and that the trolley lines would come down. There was no debate and he did not buy into the fact that the trolley buses had a great many years of good life left in them. This was going to happen no matter what. Come forward a year and Fulljames has changed his tune. It is not in any way certain that the powertrains will be suitable or will be adopted by NZ Bus. Meanwhile the trolley lines are coming down and the buses are still being taken out of service to be replaced with dirty diesel rejects from Auckland. Wow. That’s what I call planning and customer service.

But wait there is more! The new powertrains aren’t the green trolleyless alternatives that were sold to us. They are diesel hybrids that will run on diesel for approximately 89% of the time. They are a con job, a way for NZ Bus to convert clean green electric buses to diesels that can be used anywhere in NZ on any of their routes. So if they lose any contracts and have a surplus of buses they can relocate them anywhere. And lose routes they have, thanks to GWRC which is doing LGWM’s work for them, by rerouting bus routes to suit LTSA’s plan for Bus Rapid Transit. Yes that’s the roading alternative to light rail. All part of the pro road plan.

]]>By: Daran Ponterhttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907&cpage=1#comment-1556502
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:13:37 +0000http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907#comment-1556502@ Mark Shanks: Inevitably most strategies, of any organisation, public or private, fail to address all issues comprehensively. While the Regional Public Transport Strategy addresses many issues in detail, park and ride is one area where I feel that it fails to deliver a properly informed and comprehensive strategy. The alternative would be to dither along and continue to put park and ride facilities as demand dictates – with no mind to alternatives and cost-benefit. I think we can do better than that.
]]>By: Mark Shankshttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907&cpage=1#comment-1556055
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:50:27 +0000http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907#comment-1556055@ Daran – Why do we pay for strategy and plans that councillors have no faith in? All of the glossy money could have actually built something practical. What a parlous state of governance. This indecisiveness is mind-numbing!
]]>By: Daran Ponterhttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907&cpage=1#comment-1555715
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:23:27 +0000http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907#comment-1555715@ Wellington Commuter: A series of nicely chosen phrases strung together in a glossy document does not make a strategy. What we currently have may might be referred to as a strategy, but in fact falls way short.

Recent park and ride extensions might have been loosely informed by the documents that you refer to, but are in fact more closely led by simple demand and opportunity. The demand from commuters and the opportunity to provide more spaces has often arisen because third parties have been willing to provide additional land (NZTA, Upper Hutt City Council etc).

What is missing is a more holistic understanding of what we are trying to achieve with Park and Ride and whether there are other options for achieving this. For example shuttle buses vs more car parks; or better integrated fare products vs more car spaces; better walking access to stations vs more car parks etc. And as you note, the GWRC definition of Park and Ride solely relates to Rail, with no reference to bus, or ferries (for that matter).

We need a proper strategy that considers a broad suite of approaches for properly connecting commuters to modes of travel.

]]>By: Wellington Commuterhttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907&cpage=1#comment-1555038
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:06:19 +0000http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907#comment-1555038@Daran: firstly, thanks for again engaging on the thorny issue of PT. But I am confused about your statement “Greater Wellington Regional Councillors have recently directed GWRC staff to prepare a Park and Ride strategy which will assist us to better understand demand for Park and Ride as well as alternatives to park and Ride (such as improved bus shuttle services).”

It is under the CURRENT GWRC P&R Strategy that the GWRC has spent many millions on building and expanding free car parks at its rail stations. Of course many Wellington City ratepayers might ask why their rates are being spent to provide free car parks for rail commuters and but not for bus commuters? It doesn’t seem fair, and I can’t work out why “our” regional council so favours rail commuters while being so neglectful of (mainly Wellington City) bus commuters. Perhaps a regional councillor can explain?

]]>By: lukehttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907&cpage=1#comment-1553745
Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:11:11 +0000http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907#comment-1553745There needs to be more cycle storage at stations too. One carpark may generate 1.4 transit riders but it could store probably 20 bicycles which is obviously more fare paying transit riders.
]]>By: Neil Douglashttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907&cpage=1#comment-1553732
Sun, 16 Jul 2017 21:52:42 +0000http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907#comment-1553732I work out (no demand response) that given a capital charge of $15k per Park and Ride space and with $450 p.a. operating and maintenance costs then based on a NZTA 6% discount rate and 50:25:25 funding split of User Charge: Rates: NZTA funding then a charge of $3 per weekday per car park space should be levied on P&R users. The remaining cost of $3 would be shared between ratepayers $1.50 and NZTA $1.50.

The increase in revenue would allow general rail fares to be reduced by around 30 cents per trip. So a car and parker would see their rail fare go up by $2.70 whereas people who walked to the station would get a rail fare 30 cents cheaper than now.

]]>By: RJShttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907&cpage=1#comment-1553377
Sun, 16 Jul 2017 09:10:03 +0000http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907#comment-1553377Kerry: If park & ride is going to be used to help solve the problem of traffic congestion in our cities then user pays will act as a disincentive to its use by car owners – they still have to pay to use public transport. To the extent that park & ride reduces city traffic by a useful amount, I stand by my argument that everybody benefits, so the user pays principle applies to all.

In fact, I doubt that it will make a significant contribution to congestion. A more direct approach such as a congestion charge levied on vehicles entering the city will be a disincentive to car users and is a more appropriate application of user pays. You contribute to the problem, so you pay.

Casey: I am quite familiar with the woes of ratepayers. It is just a matter of being clear about who a ‘user’ of a service or facility is. I fully agree with you about parking and congestion charges.

]]>By: Caseyhttp://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907&cpage=1#comment-1553266
Sun, 16 Jul 2017 04:29:05 +0000http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=100907#comment-1553266RJS: If the user doesn’t pay for a park and ride facility then the cost will be yet another burden on the over burdened ratepayers. Rates increases are now running at 3 times that of before tax average wage and pension increases.

If one owns a car then one ought to pay all the costs of the resources it uses. Making CBD parking charges higher, and having peak congestion charges will dissuade some from using cars. Those who want to pay to continue taking cars into the CBD can help fund park and ride facilities.